1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
theunitofcaring
theunitofcaring

I’m sad. A lot of good, brilliant, kind people who believed in what the United States stood for, and wanted to work and study and build lives here, are instead stranded in countries where they are in a ton of danger. People who helped Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and risked retaliation for it, have been betrayed; we promised them they’d have the chance to come build lives here. We broke that promise. Hopefully no one in occupied countries will ever trust us or cooperate with us again.

I’ve been refraining from saying anything because I can’t think of anything charitable and balanced and open-minded that will resonate with people who think turning away Iranian PhD students is some sort of courageous strike for justice. I have nothing to say to those people right now. I value non-Americans and I want them to be safe and happy and I think we and they are strengthened when they have the chance to live and work here; if you don’t care about people who birth placed outside our borders, then for the moment I can’t think of anything to say to you. 

But I’m not going to stay quiet until I come up with something.

This is wrong. This is cruel. This should be fought in the courts and fought by any other achievable means. This is not defensible as a means of reducing violence; this is not defensible as a means of preserving our values; this is only defensible if you think people born in other countries don’t matter, and promises don’t matter, and integrity doesn’t matter, and symbolic expressions of loathing for Muslims matter a great deal. 

That’s not charitable at all. I don’t think I really care.

mitigatedchaos

Maybe someone could organize a fund to pay to house these people for the duration.

politics trump
collapsedsquid
collapsedsquid

Noah Smith is doing his “you people on the left need to be re-conciliatory, join up with moderate conservatives like McMullin to fight Trumpism“ that’s continuing his “The US is turning into civil war spain“ idea.

And he’s presenting it like people on the left are too prideful to do it, which some are.  But the other problem with this he’s not addressing is that this plan could basically be “We’re about to be shipwrecked in the middle of the ocean, so what we need to do is to tie ourselves to the heaviest and fastest-sinking piece of the ship!“

whatevernatureis

Boring answer is that granting the premises there’s risks and benefits to either strategy, and while the risks and benefits for one strategy or the other might in principle be calculable, the noise of motivated reasoning means we won’t be able to tell which strategy is “right” ahead of time.

I’m largely in the camp that we should do what we can to defend liberal-democratic norms and make a coalition with anyone else who is also defending liberal-democratic norms, whatever else their views may be. Granted, that’s partly because there’s no real coherent agenda with broad support among the left, and we shouldn’t be picky about ideological purity when we don’t know what our ideology is.

(I mean, Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are very popular on the left, but their popularity is more about personality and symbolism than policy)

collapsedsquid

I think the agenda with broad support is social democracy.  That’s what the Bernie and Warren supporters want, that’s actually something that exists, and it’s a goal that can be worked towards.

And I’m not sure what level or type of support the left is expected to give.  Is the left supposed to agree with McMullin when he says the Real Problem is the size of the US deficit? That’s the problem here, what exactly does this “coalition“ entail? Who gets thrown under the bus?

The closest thing to an answer I could think of is the generic culture war “Tone down the PC“ thing.  But even leaving aside the morality and possible damage of that decision it’s tricky because it’s not something that can be given away, I don’t think it’s so much the law that pisses people off as the actions of people. It’s not available to give up.

mitigatedchaos

I think we could actually get some support for social democracy.  I don’t think it will be as pragmatic as I’d like, but a relatively coherent social democracy that is not indifferent to the conditions of WWC rural Americans could rally up some enthusiasm and take some of the pressure off of automation.

And yeah, social democracy exists, and unlike Communism, it doesn’t involve killing lots of people.

I’m not sure how well it would work when combined with Globalism, which seems to be a thing the Left really does not want to remove, which I want to see removed.  

On top of that, I recently had someone argue that all cultures are equal, despite my clearly explaining that FGM is cultural (not even religious), and them appearing to be opposed to FGM.  So I’m not sure how much pragmatism there is to be had.

politics trump social democracy the left globalism
bambamramfan

Anonymous asked:

So, the current president of the US and the political party that controls the government won, this year, on a platform that, in part, openly appealed to white nationalists. The only thing I have seen from the rationalistsphere about this fact is A) telling people they're overreacting and B) treating people like monsters because they don't condemn the punching of a prominent neo-nazi. Why is this? Why the commitment to pretending that the "left" in the US is the real danger?

bambamramfan answered:

A fair question. I agree with @raggedjackscarlet the other day that lots of anti-SJ types are underestimating the possibility of right wing dictatorship.

I think a lot of people are struggling with how to deal with Trump, and honestly no one has found a good way to do so yet. He’s like the zombie we’ve shot all our ammunition into, and keeps on coming. Finding out how to defeat him is a top priority.

But let’s not ignore how much of the world is a liberal order - ie, focused on rights like free speech and property and voting and privacy, rather than trying to merge all of society into one collective body under the Leader. Even if Trump isn’t a rights based liberal, he doesn’t run all of society. Paul Ryan is a libertarian, and most Senators can be fit under this rubric. The richest CEOs of the richest companies are good liberals (like Tim Cook.) The top bureaucrats at all agencies believe in this worldview, not to mention the media and academia.

So if you’re worried “liberals might hate me and wish me harm” vs “fascists might hate me and wish me harm” that former group still has a lot more power to do so. And if liberals promise to be kind to each other and protect each other, actually the fascists will find there isn’t much they can do to us.

I at least reject very much political programs that try to unite everyone around hating “one idiot.” Even the most dangerous idiot in the free world is still one dude. The question is the system that gets everyone to play along to his stupid antics.

  • Don’t read his twitter.
  • Don’t believe what his federal agencies say and who they accuse of crimes especially.
  • Don’t give him ratings.
  • Don’t turn in immigrants and Muslims.
  • Don’t accept his “us vs them” mentality.

…is how I fight Trump. Dodge the draft and evade taxes if it becomes necessary even.

I admit this doesn’t sound like the most effective plan ever. But in absence of a guaranteed way to defeat him, for the love of god, stop beating each up or other bystanders.

*****

Also you are not a monster if you want to punch a Nazi. It’s okay. These are pretty normal urges shared by many people. I hope you don’t do it, but I definitely don’t think you are a monster. Like, how would you even log onto to tumblr and submit an ask if you were? The monitor would melt and your claws would crush the keyboard. No you’re totally human.

mitigatedchaos

@anon The rationalsphere isn’t condemning people for not condemning the punch, that I’ve seen.  They’re condemning people that are celebrating it as a general principle.

@bambamramfan

I think a lot of people are struggling with how to deal with Trump, and honestly no one has found a good way to do so yet. He’s like the zombie we’ve shot all our ammunition into, and keeps on coming. Finding out how to defeat him is a top priority.

Social status competition and (yes, really) virtue signalling, emotional satisfaction, and other things caused all the ammunition to lose its teeth.

This is actually a side effect of unethical tactics.  Basically antibiotic resistance mutating as an effect of overuse of antibiotics.

Every politician against the Left was decried as “racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic”.  Every position on immigration other than open borders was described as “racist”.  Any criticism of Islam, which is not a very liberal religion and is tied into politics in ways that other foreign religions are not, was met with accusations of “racism”.  

What is the correct tactical response on the Right to these things?  To just flat out stop caring.  Having swamped the field of racism/sexism/etc accusations with noise (I outright ignore uncited accusations of sexism these days), so many people have stopped listening that you can put in actual racists and cover for it by accusing the accusations of being fake!  Because, to the typical viewer who doesn’t have time to research, often enough they actually are fake.

This is what Trump is.  He is the antibiotic resistant bacteria.  He is the strain that survived because people were busy applying antibiotics en masse to the common cold, which isn’t even caused by a bacteria in the first place.

I don’t know how to unbreak those tools, because I don’t know how to take them away from idiots and status-craving unethical people.  If I make a new signal for “no, this guy is actually racist, he doesn’t just want to enforce existing immigration laws”, it will be hijacked by these same politicals who will use it to lie for status, resources, and power.

It will also be used to attack me and people like me.

Locally, there are still people I trust with a sexism/racism/etc accusation, but that number is shrinking.

politics the left trump
bambamramfan
marcusseldon

I said I’d talk about politics less, but I feel like I do need to get this out of my system. 

There’s an idea going around both on my dash, and people I know in person, that the behavior of people on the left is what caused Trump to be elected. Different groups get the blame, whether it is rich white liberals in Silicon Valley, DC, and Hollywood, the campus left, black lives matter, internet SJWs and feminists, mainstream media journalists, late night comedians, or some combination of these, the theory goes that Trump was essentially a white working class middle finger to the condescension, radicalism, and disrespect toward traditional values of members of these various left-wing groups. People who put forward this theory say that to win back Trump voters, the left needs to be kinder, more compassionate, and less radical toward white working class (WWC) culture, values, and way of life. The claim is that if only the left were nicer to WWC people and respected their way of life more, Trump would have never even won a Republican primary, let alone an electoral college majority.

Now, leaving aside whether it would be personally moral and virtuous to be more compassionate and less radical toward the WWC (probably to at least some extent), I want to raise doubts about whether this perspective is actually useful for winning elections and defeating Trumpism.

No doubt many WWC people, and those sympathetic to them, feel condescended to, disrespected, and that their way of life is under attack by the left. There is also no doubt that there have been individuals and groups on the left that have been openly hostile to the WWC way of life, where “white male” is an insult, conservative Christians are publicly degraded and mocked, performative flag-waving nationalism is seen as not just gauche but stupid and hick-ish, and where white rural people are assumed to be personally racist and homophobic.

But, all political movements are going to have their assholes who degrade the other side and openly disrespect them. It’s easy to miss when you largely live in left-wing bubbles online and off, which I imagine is true of most people on my dash, and is certainly true of me, but the right has their own version of this, and it’s popular. There’s a post going around my dash about a condescending line in a Meryl Streep speech, and how this is an example of liberal condescension that created Trump, but I guarantee you that more people listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity on the radio every day than saw that Meryl Streep speech. And Limbaugh and Hannity on an almost daily basis disrespect, mock, and condescend to liberal constituencies, values, and ways of life. And guess what, Republicans still won.

People like Limbaugh and Hannity, not to mention Fox News and Breitbart, make their money by inflaming a sense of grievance and resentment of the left among the disproportionately rural, older, religious, and WWC Republican base. These outlets have far more political reach and power than random SJW blogs, the campus left, black lives matter, actors or tech billionaires giving speeches, or even late night comedians. 

In the educated liberal bubbles that I and many people in my online and offline circles reside in, the reverse can seem true. It can seem like left-wing culture is omnipresent and the right is completely stifled by blacks lives matter, SJWs, and late night comedians. But in other circles, which comprise nearly half the country, the reverse is true. 

In many ways, the left is already on net more compassionate to the WWC than the right is to left-wing constituencies. There were countless articles in left-wing outlets talking to Trump voters in order to understand and sympathize with Trump voters. I don’t think I’ve ever once seen an article in a right-wing outlet that went to Harlem, San Francisco, or Ann Arbor, trying to compassionately understand the motivations and lifestyle of people on the other side from their point of view.

So the idea that the left must hold itself to an even higher standard on compassion and  than the right to win elections seems implausible to me (again, leaving aside whether holding ourselves to a higher standard would be more virtuous and moral). 

Even if the left was nicer to the WWC, I don’t see that changing vote patterns, or making the WWC feel any less resentful and under attack. Suppose 90% of the left-wing people who are being blamed for the rise of Trumpism became nicer. The Limbaughs and Hannitys and Breitbarts of the world, and the millions who follow them, wouldn’t take a step back and say “you know, maybe the left doesn’t hate me or my way of life”. No. They would continue to cherry pick the worst examples, as they already do, from a smaller set of mean liberals in order to inflame cultural resentment and grievance among their followers, and they would also continue to see things that I think aren’t mean and are true that the left says, like that black people have a rougher relationship with the police than other groups, as offensive and attacking their dignity and way of life.

I’m not saying there’s no way to convince some of these people over to the left. But, pointing the finger at the meaner (and numerically smaller) strains of the left and thinking that if only for them being condescending and disrespectful we would be in a golden age of liberal dominance in politics doesn’t strike me as true or productive.

bambamramfan

So I get your frustration, and a lot of what you say is correct. It’s far too tempting to say “Hey leftists-who-disagree-with-me, YOU’RE the reason our enemy won!” without sufficient proof. That’s just opportunism.

And we should treat the WWC (and all of the WC) in this country with compassion, and we should help their material needs, regardless of whether it wins us elections. Trying to come up with political justifications for basic human decency is a bit creepy.

(Plus, not to mention a Far Right resurgence is occurring across the entire developed world. It seems very petty to blame that on a few annoying American liberals. There are deeper trends here.)

I feel you here.


However, there is some countervailing evidence here.

1. If we’re not being condescending to them, we should listen to what our enemies are saying. And in between accusations of corruption and defending the free market, Republican voters seem really, really upset about Political Correctness. Obsessed with it, and explicitly saying they support idiots like Trump just to defy Political Correctness.

You can dismiss what they say and come up with other reasons they voted the way they did (they just want to be racist, or economic anxiety) but then that is being patronizing because you aren’t really listening anymore. If you listen, Political Correctness is a huge deal to them, and teasing out the source of that sounds like a worthwhile endeavor.

2. A lot of this is just projection from some left-of-center allies about the illiberal tactics used by establishment social justice, such as extreme arrogance, dismissiveness, shallow analysis, using institutional power to punish dissenters, and a bunch of other mindkilling, groupthink tactics. Said allies (or, former allies) really hated those tactics, and so rejoice in blaming them for the defeat of the mainstream SJ candidate.

Projection is not a good source of analysis of course, and so they might be wrong that this really caused Trump’s victory. But said establishment really should pay attention to how many enemies it has, even “on its own side.” Their tactics are really ticking off their friends, causing dissension every step away. SJ can try to ignore this dissent and pain as long as they wield the hammer, but don’t be surprised when their enemies leap at any weakness as a chance to earn some rhetorical points.

Social justice has enraged and alienated conservatives, libertarians, moderates, socialists, communists, and artsy anarchists. At some point it will have no friends left except the business-friendly / socially liberal wing of a city-based party.

3. Something happened between 2012 and 2016. There’s some reason Republicans started really getting into unbridled rudeness and race-baiting. You can’t even wholly blame Trump for finally opening the floodgates, he tried in 2012. What the hell happened to make voters so much more racist, or at least racist-tolerant? It’s not like there are a lot more immigrants around or other normal causes of racial strife (let alone to explain the tolerance of crude sexual behavior.)

And to the unaided eye, one of the real changes of the past 4 years was the political visibility of intolerant liberalism. So it’s at least worth considering “the thing that changed in the last 4 years, is somewhat responsible for the rather different outcome this time around.”

mitigatedchaos

Regarding #1: If a 100% black company is okay, but a 100% white company “isn’t diverse enough”, this implies whites are inherently worth less than PoC. If women have equal beneficial capabilities to men, but men are uniquely violent and oppressive, this implies women are better than men.

I think people can feel this even if they don’t consciously realize it.

Also, as one of those alienated types, those tactics you mention make SJ a liability to me in many ways.

Source: marcusseldon politics gender politics race politics trump
argumate
argumate

has anyone referred to Trump as garbage president? it just seems fitting.

rangi42

I’m pretty sure that, in their desperate attempts to avoid saying “Trump”, let alone “President Trump”, people have exhausted every insulting combination of letters.

(Next step: emoji. 🍊💩)

argumate

garbage president it is! let’s make this happen.

it suits his vernacular after all, in a twisted way it’s recognition.

mitigatedchaos

That just helps with his “Liberals HATE me, just like they hate you!  I must be doing something right then, eh?” narrative.

I simply call him the Orange Man.

trump